Well, there you have it. The papacy posts are done. Personally, I think the weight of evidence is clear. But let me repeat something that I mentioned in the first post on this subject – There is room enough to disbelieve if you choose to do so.
But when you stop and think about it, this room for disbelief is critically important. If we had absolute proof from God, then faith would be of diminished importance. All that would be required of believers is submission to the proof. In such a case, Christianity would be much more like Islam. In Islam, the true believer is measured by how well they submit to the will of Allah. Not so in Christianity, where faith in God is more important than such simplistic submission.
Faith in God, to a Catholic, includes faith in His Church – the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the spiritual head of the Church. The pope is the earthy head.
Don’t be put off by the fact that some people choose to disbelieve in the Church and the papacy. Don’t be put off by the fact that some people will advocate against them both. We all have choices to make in this life, and they have made theirs. What does your heart tell you? What does your head tell you? And where do you place your faith?
The archeology part was certainly intersting, as was the references to scripture in Aramic. The Aramic hypothesis certainly explains much.
But besides St Peter being special and going to Rome--any reasonably sane person could not deny either of those contentions--what was the development of the papacy over the first few hundred years?
As an example, the council of Nicea was not attended by the Pope (he was sick apparenly, and sent a representitive), and it seems as though he was not necesarily the last word, as a modern pope would be today, on anything until sometime later.
I for one don't have a problem with the Bible being the history of the early church, and a history which should have been and ought to be built on while remaining true to that early history. That being the case, could you connect the dots a little between St. Peter and say, the 5th century or so?
Chas,
Alas, to connect those dots would require a hefty project that I'm just not up to right now. True, they would be interesting, but there are only so many hours in a day.
I'll do them, but it's going to be a while.
And I've had plenty of otherwise sane people deny Peter as special and ever having been in Rome. They generally can't argue their points well - just quote what they've been told - and give up the discussion rather quickly. But they are out there.
I'd appreciate seeing "altar" rather than "alter" on this site.